Global warming and the confrontation between the West and the rest of the world

I have no expertise in climate issues and I don’t presume to judge whether this theory is true or false, but I am an expert in international politics and I can assess the work of this UN commission.

Ten years ago, I wrote that, as its name suggests, the IPCC is not a learned academy at all, but an intergovernmental group [1]. Its conclusions are therefore not the fruit of a scientific approach, but of a political debate.

The IPCC was created on the initiative of the British Prime Minister, Margareth Thatcher, to support her fight against the miners’ unions. Unsurprisingly, it concluded that coal is bad for the environment, while nuclear power is desirable. This is not a scientific theorem, but a political statement.

Furthermore, I pointed out that the creation of greenhouse gas emission rights is not an intergovernmental initiative, but an idea of the Joyce Foundation, implemented by Climate Exchange Ltd. [2]. Each state drafts its own legislation on the subject. It receives a certain quantity of emission rights, which it allocates as it sees fit to companies. Companies that only partially use their rights can resell them on a specialized stock exchange in Chicago.

The articles of association for this exchange were drafted by a then unknown Joyce Foundation lawyer, a certain Barack Obama (future President of the United States). The call for investors to launch the exchange was organized by Al Gore (future vice-president of the United States), and David Blood (former director of Goldman Sachs bank). Whether you consider these people to be bona fide environmental activists or high-flying swindlers is a matter of perspective.

Over time, this political device has been cloaked in a veneer of science and good intentions, making it difficult to question. Yet there is an alternative scientific theory to explain global warming. It was put forward by Croatian geophysicist Milutin Milanković between the wars.

The Earth’s orbit varies according to three natural cycles: eccentricity, obliquity and the precession of the equinoxes. Each of these variations follows a cycle, between 20,000 and 100,000 years, which is perfectly calculable. Combined, these three variations influence the Earth’s insolation and hence its climate. This theory was confirmed in 1976 by the study of ice cores from the Vostok drilling project in Antarctica. But it doesn’t explain everything.

The Russian Academy of Sciences has just put forward a third theory, also based on observation of nature. According to it, “The main cause of local climatic catastrophes is the increasing emission of natural hydrogen due to the alternating gravitational forces of the moon and sun, which cause holes in the ozone layer. The resulting rise in temperature and the mixing of ozone and hydrogen are the main causes of forest and steppe fires” [3]].

The Académie des Sciences not only questions the dogma of the IPCC, it also challenges the mechanism for reducing holes in the ozone layer. Namely, the Vienna Convention and the Montreal Protocol “whose implementation has wiped out entire sub-industries of the chemical industry without affecting the size of ozone holes, which have only increased”.

The Russian Academy of Sciences’ theory is also based on the idea that global warming is not a comparable phenomenon in different parts of the world. Contrary to popular belief, the temperature of the Pacific Ocean is actually cooling [4].

The findings of the Russian Academy of Sciences will be presented at COP-28 in Dubai in late November/early December. A political battle is already underway to silence the scientists. It concerns the appointment of the session chairman, who will be able to give the floor to the troublemakers or, on the contrary, silence them. Mohammed ben Zayed, the ruler of the United Arab Emirates, is in charge of choosing the chairman. He has appointed Sultan al-Jaber, his Minister of Industry. US and EU parliamentarians immediately wrote to UN Secretary-General António Guterres, asking him to oppose the move. Their argument, as ever, is irrelevant to their objective. They argue that Sultan al-Jaber is also Chairman of the Abu Dhabi National Oil Company (Adnoc). He would therefore be judge and jury. Instead, they recommend appointing a non-fossil fuel lobbyist. He would also be judge and jury, but for the opposing camp.

If Russian scientists speak out at COP-28, the assembly is likely to split in two, not along scientific but political lines. Anglo-Saxon supporters versus Russian supporters (the rest of the world). There’s no doubt that the IPCC dogma will soon become the idée fixe of the West and the laughing stock of the rest of the world.